Lake City council signals consensus to create advisory board and add two members to CRA board

The Lake City Community Redevelopment Agency on March 2 spent substantial time discussing whether to expand or reorganize the CRA board and whether to create an advisory board to assist with grant scoring and redevelopment planning.

City Attorney Martin told the board that under the statute the council retained the authority to sit as the CRA board and that if the council initially chose the council-model it cannot reverse that choice to create a separate, distinct CRA board. "By electing to do a council model first, the way the statute is worded, you can't go in the other direction," Martin said, laying out the council's legal constraints and the options available.

Martin outlined options short of creating a separate CRA board: the council can expand the current five-member council-led board by appointing up to two additional members (for a seven-member body); those two must be either City of Lake City residents or people who own or have a business interest in Lake City. The council may also create either a permanent or ad hoc advisory board to help score and vet applications.

Several council members, including Garner and Carter, said they favored both expanding the CRA board with two outside members and establishing a citizen-and-business-owner advisory board to provide outside perspective and to filter applications for the council. "Personally, I think they should be community leaders," Garner said, urging appointees such as county representatives or chamber-recommended business leaders.

The board discussed mechanics for selection: options ranged from a simple nomination and vote, to soliciting public applications and scoring candidates, to combining nomination with an ordinance or resolution that establishes a formal selection process. Martin recommended staff draft options and bring a recommended process back to the board.

Council members also debated who should appoint advisory members — the city council (the five sitting members) or the expanded CRA board (the five members plus two appointees). The board signaled a preference for the council to retain appointment authority and asked staff to return with recommended sizes and processes; staff was asked to present recommendations and ordinance language to implement the chosen approach.

The council did not adopt an ordinance or take a formal vote at the workshop; members indicated consensus to proceed with staff recommendations and to form an advisory board to begin filtering and scoring applications.